Property agreement with defacto who has contributed zero to purchase.

[Perry]

That I appreciate. But are there precedents which have a bearing on RPA matters? Especially if:

1) a Trust is set up before the three year period;

2) a Trust was in existence well before they met?

[sidinz]

Where is the money for the deposit coming from?
Also, have you been paying the mortgage during the relationship?

The law counts any money earned during the relationship as relationship property. If you've been paying the mortgage with relationship property you run the risk of the Trust being broken open to release those funds in the event of a claim.

Likewise, if the deposit for the IP comes from earnings that are relationship property, you may find that it's already half her house (assuming you make it to three years.)

[Wayne]

That I appreciate. But are there precedents which have a bearing on RPA matters? Especially if:

1) a Trust is set up before the three year period;

2) a Trust was in existence well before they met?

This is an area you need to lawyer up for - complicated.
I'm sure I have read cases where the ultimate control was the deciding factor.

[MikeO]

Why does that reason rate a special mention?

Google Clayton v Clayton. My non-lawyers take on it is that the power to appoint and remove trustees and beneficiaries etc can be considered relationship property with the value equal to the assets of the trust.

Add to that living in the property (potentially making it the family home) and I would say best case scenario you would be in a legal grey area that would be expensive to resolve.

[MikeO]

here is a good link: http://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profe...urt-judgments/

[Perry]

Google Clayton v Clayton.

That reference has been referred to, before. A critical part is this comment:

The Claytons’ assets were primarily held in a number of trusts, settled during and after their relationship.

My questions don't seem to apply to that precedent, viz.

Are there precedents which have a bearing on RPA matters? Especially if:

1) a Trust is set up before the three year period;

2) a Trust was in existence well before they met?

[Keys]

Perry.

In reference to your question number 1)

Clayton v Clayton.

Before the three year period could conceivably be during the relationship.

[Perry]

Yes, it could. But what of my question 2?

Are there [Trust-busting] precedents which have a bearing on relationship property when the Trust was in existence well before they met?

On the face of it, that would be separate property.

[MikeO]

Yes, it could. But what of my question 2?



On the face of it, that would be separate property.

A home owned prior to the relationship is separate property as well, until such time as you both live in it and it becomes relationship property = the family home (which is why I asked whether they were living in the home owned by the trust).

If it were me and I wanted to keep the property as separate property I would be consulting a lawyer before relying on the existing of a trust.

[Joolee]

Get a pre-nup. The Relationship Property Act is being reviewed but that doesn't mean you'll be safe.

I've just been through a divorce and my ex got half of everything. He came into the marriage with nothing. The irony is he now has a much nicer property and is in a better financial position than me (in the short term) as he also got half my kiwi saver (he didn't have KS) which I had to pay out of my share of the division.
So get it sorted asap or you may end up with a similar situation.

[mrsaneperson]

I had a pre-nup protecting my first house which was almost fully paid off .My ex signed it , then after marrying; we along the way purchased another 6 properties jointly .We recently split up after 25 years, she is claiming rightfully 50% of the joint properties. .

But now also trying to claim a percentage of the pre-nup property as advised by her lawyer!